Posted
by
CowboyNealon Friday July 21, 2006 @07:36AM
from the don't-look-here dept.

scubamage writes "By denying security clearance to federal attorneys from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) seeking to gather evidence in the NSA illegal surveillance scandal, President Bush has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place. The president is apparently able to strictly control who does and does not have security clearance to examine documents regarding the program, citing that giving more people access would endanger national security. His denial is the first of its kind in American history. To quote the article, 'Since its creation some 31 years ago, OPR has conducted many highly sensitive investigations involving Executive Branch programs and has obtained access to information classified at the highest levels,' chief lawyer H. Marshall Jarrett wrote in a memorandum released Tuesday. 'In all those years, OPR has never been prevented from initiating or pursuing an investigation.'"

> President Bush has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of> who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place

He sure as hell wouldn't have done that had it been an opportunity to point the finger at any of his rivals. Even if he wasn't responsible, he's now responsible for the cover up. If American voters aren't happy with his decision they can always vote him out. I'm sure by the time of the next election there'll be some other bogeyman to deal with - presumably lebenese or syrian terrorists, angry at all the US built/paid for planes and tanks pounding lebenon.

If there was a vote for impeachment that the public could vote in, I would vote. But the only things I can do, is spread the word, and send a letter to my congressman. Then hope my congressman helps set up the process for impeachment. So, technically, the only way this is going to get started is if my congressman wants to discipline the president. Otherwise, everything I do and say is for naught.

How is it fortunate? Even the right side of the isle is starting to leave support for this president in droves. Illegal wiretapping, two (that's right, two) botched wars (the Taliban just took back two towns in Afganistan), extreme secrecy, Vallery Plame, calling for the State Secrets privledge across the board, botched operations after Katrina, Scooter Libby, Carl Rove, prosecution of reporters, prosecution of private citizens under the Espionage act, Free Speech zones, Halliburton, $7 trillion national debt, between $200-$400 billion spent in Iraq against estimates of $8B, depletion of the National Guard, NSA blanket collection of phone records, NSA collection of airline records, secret laws that dictate conduct at airports, secret laws that you are governed by but CANNOT READ. The tip of the iceberg.

And now the ability to squash investigations against himself. It's like killing someone and then having the power to say "um, no - you can't investigate me".

This presidency is perhaps the worst in the HISTORY of the United States. Its abuses of power, power grab, secrecy, and corruption know no bounds. The president has lost the support of all but the most extreme NWO right wing. Clinton was impeached for "lying" to the public, but Bush has been involved in every scandal listed above, and sits atop his throne with pure immunity against the checks and balances of this country.

Never before have I come to expect to learn of some new executive branch abuse on a daily basis.

Besides, over 700,000 people already HAVE voted [impeachbush.org] to impeach him, as useless as this website may be.

Bush and his yes men have moved the right further left than it has ever been. Right and left have reversed roles in the 20 years since Regan. It's almost impossible to grasp the sheer size, power, secrecy, and surveilance of citizens of and by the federal government at this point in time.

This presidency is a farce, and I shudder when I think that 2.5 years remain.

Bush and his yes men have moved the right further left than it has ever been. Right and left have reversed roles in the 20 years since Regan. It's almost impossible to grasp the sheer size, power, secrecy, and surveilance of citizens of and by the federal government at this point in time.

The rest of your points were good, but this is just idiotic beyond belief and it is truly typical of the extreme ignorance of the most basic political definitions typical of the vast majority of Americans.

The Right has not been moving left. The entire fucking country has been moving farther and farther to the right since WW2. Reagan's presidency was when we had a massive acceleration of this headlong race to fascism.

Let me guess, you think that because the Repugs are spending like drunken sailors that they're "left"?!?Seriously, wake up.The right and the left *both* stand for big oppressive government and always have by definition. The only difference is what they want to use the power of government against the people in order to accomplish.

The right believes that the wealthy elite are inherently better than the rest of the people and the power of government should be used against the people to keep them down.The left believes that all people are equal and wants to use the power of government against people to enforce this "equality".

Nowhere in the makeup of either the left or the right does freedom, liberty, small government fiscal responsibility or anything of the sort even exist. Those are the things that they are *both* absolutely opposed to.

If the Republicans were far "left", then there wouldn't be massive widening in the gap between the rich and the poor and a slide of the middle class into poverty as we're seeing. We would just all be equally poor.

I surely see your point, but to not try is just as criminal as what's going on.

Not that it carries much weight, but if you do so, then at least your mind can rest easier that you done all you could.

I know it seems futile, but if we all don't do anything, then no changes take place- keep some hope, try to do your best, and maybe it will work out okay.

BTW, the "If there was a vote for impeachment that the public could vote in, I would vote." idea is a good one, too bad that will probably never happen, the congresscritters would be too afraid it might (and should) apply to them also.

Who then reports you for being un American. How DARE you criticise the government? Clearly you are a terrorist or you'd have no problem with your Gov. doing whatever it takes to protect your rights.

Hence the reason I don't support my political party, the Libertarians, more publicly. With all the spying and neo-McCarthyism I feel like a criminal just for wanting to regain some basic civil liberties. If I were to wear my political ideals on my sleeve, who knows what Big Brother might do?

Wow what a wuss. In the past Americans have died for our beliefs. But you won't support a political party because (contrary to any actual evidence) you believe you may be spied upon and some "great unknown" may happen? Why don't you grow a pair and fight for your rights? Freedom is expensive my friend.

I've considered your words and you are right. It will take some time to consider my actions, but thank you for calling me out in such a blunt way. What good are ideals of freedom if no action is taken to protect and regain personal liberties?
Again, thank you. I will take this to heart.

Step 1. Repeat that exchange for every other person you know that has said the same as you were saying.
Step 2. Have each of them who start to stand up like you do the same.
Step 3. Wait for this to generate enough people standing up to be taken seriously.

And the vast majority of those tried for war crimes were still convicted - because "I was just following orders" is never a defense against following unethical, inhuman, or illegal orders. Sometimes a court will choose to not convict the soldier, because they'd rather go after the ones in charge, but make no mistake: that kind of defense, isn't one.

And the American military has standing rules that state explicitly that "just following orders" is no defense against following illegal orders.

Freedom implies being free. If the government controls everything you do and can selectivly persecute based on random unknown criteria then you are not free by any english definition of the word that I or oxford am aware of.

Furthermore making the statement that only people with something to hide should fear the government ignores 2000 years of governments taking any chance they get to increase their power and violate citizens rights. Do you really think that the party in power would be able to resist the temptation to spy on citizens who would pose a threat to their political power and/or policies ? Not terrorism, just plain old politics. Hell the republicans have already been found guilty of spying once in the past generation, now they have gone hi-tech and tried covering all of the bases for anyone to find out whats actually going on. No, the democrats are no better, and thats a large part of the problem. With two ultra-corrupt all-powerful groups like this, how can anyone stand against them and fight for their rights.

The govenment doesnt need to know everything to investigate terrorism. Not to mention that even with the computers analyzing the calls and emails it doesnt change the fact that we knew a good deal about 9/11 before it happened. Having knowledge means NOTHING, the most important thing is what you do with that knowledge. The government is too damn big and full of know-nothings to be able to handle information correctly, especially large amounts of information. Just look at katrina, iraq, social security, global warming and countless other things they continually fuck up because they mishandle or misunderstand the simplest data sets and concepts.

We need a smaller government who handles our country and its needs first. Freedom is not free, but sacrificing freedom for security is a bad exchange and will make our entire society bankrupt.

Yes it is. So why don't you grow a pair and tell your government that you are not their bitch and you won't stand by while your rights are systematically stripped from you. You seem to be willing to sell your freedom for the appearance of security. Americans have died for their ideals, you disgrace yourself and your country by cowering in fear and giving up the principles they fought for, because you're afraid of terrorists.

You are god dammed right it is. In the words of one the greatest American poet/philosophers: Freedom isn't free [stlyrics.com]. There's a hefty fucking fee. If you won't throw in your buck 'o five, who will....

Right. And right now about the only people with "freedom isn't free" ribbon bumper stickers are people who support Bush. Those things piss me off royally, because this administration has done more to make me less free than any other, and it just keeps getting worse.

However that ~50.5% of the people who voted for Bush are going to read this and think, "oh, that liberal press," or "they'll (? who is they anyway ?) say anything to make little old Bush look bad," or "but he just seems no nice and down to earth." Really, we just don't want to hear anything [sciencedaily.com] that doesn't fit with our already held beliefs.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

So it is ok for the founding fathers to stop their government from abusing its power, but it is not all right for us?

Bush is acting like someone who has no responsibility and nothing to lose or gain. Which is exactly what's the case - he won't be re-elected anyways, so why act responsibly? His only hope of continuing to be in power is to become a de-facto dictator, by declaring some emergency situation and delaying the next presidential election, potentially forever.

And it's not like the "checks and balances" would work anymore. The same country that once almost impeached a president because he had an extramarital blowjob sits on its hands in regards to one who intentionally deceived the nation, started a war based on lies, essentially raped the Constitution and pissed on the Bill of Rights.

You did nothing about that so far. So Bush - who has nothing to gain from acting responsibly, remember - will continue down that road, and at this time I give it a 50:50 chance that there will be no presidential election in 2008.

You are deceiving yourself: of course there will be another election in the US in 2008. It will be another joke, and another Republican puppet will be elected. The ruling party needs to maintain the illusion of democracy -- at least for a while -- or there likely will be a public backlash. =8-P

The parent of this post is absolutely correct. The coming election will see any realistic choice who might dare to challenge the forming dictatorship having his character assassinated by this NSA data. Release a little private data here or there just so that it paints a picture you want and suddenly a potent political threat becomes a laughing stock in the eyes of the general voting public.

I have read the RFP's for this program. It is total information awareness. There is no limit to it. The real issue here is the construction of a system that not even the NAZI SS could in their wildest immagination have dreamed of being able to achieve. I know there are people here who will see this in a partizan light. It isn't the case. This is a genuine threat to the existence of a democratically elected congress. It threatens the career of anyone daring to speak up on real issues. Warning to my non-USA friends, this program knows no borders!

The program has nothing what so ever to do with fighting Al Qaeda. To prove this ask yourself the following question. What since 9/11/2001 has the United States of America done under President Bush's leadership to convince the Arab peoples that their culture is broken and that they need to do something about it in order to end this endless cycle of war and destruction so that they may prosper and live in peace? (Answer: NOTHING!) Honestly this means that 100% of the activity since that date has impinged on American Freedom or destroyed American Treasure or destroyed American Soldiers and always it has encouraged and reinforced the opposition making the situation worse. Every American regardless of party should wake up to the seriousness and awful reality of this situation. At the cost of nearly 20,000 soldiers, and a trillion dollars in treasure and the expense of privacy and freedom Americans are now in more danger than they were before.

This condition is not a press report. It is a fact known from contact with soldiers who are out there dealing with it. When soldiers fresh back from Bagram Afghanistan report that "It was better than being in jail" (a quote) and the ones from Iraq report that they are garrisoned in etc, this is a lost cause by mismangement at the limit.

Mods get a life if you cannot stand the truth. Post against the point of view if you want, but don't shut up the truth.

"At the cost of nearly 20,000 soldiers, and a trillion dollars in treasure and the expense of privacy and freedom Americans are now in more danger than they were before."

We're in more danger now than before because we give Israel $2.5billion in aid and Lebanon $40million in aid. We're in trouble because at times like now, when both sides have crossed the line, politicians pass resolutions declaring support for Israel and condemning Lebanon, all because Israelis have a huge lobby in DC. I'm not condoning the actions of either side, but it's our unrelenting support of Israel when there bombing the beejeezes out of a largely innocent country that bugs me. If we provided $2.5billion in aid to Lebanon, what kind of political power would Hezbollah be then?

Bush is acting like someone who has no responsibility and nothing to lose or gain. Which is exactly what's the case - he won't be re-elected anyways, so why act responsibly?

This is a very good point. Limiting the President to two terms has caused the first term to be all about the President's re-election campaign, while the second term is filled with scandal. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Ken Starr/Monica. Though he's been extremely lucky that his opponents have been too flatfooted to get much of anything out of them, Bush has had more scandals than all of these guys put together.

For an amendment designed to prevent a de facto monarchy from taking over, the two-term limit has had the intended consequence of encouraging Presidents to act arrogantly and irresponsibly with their power.

Your comment is on point. But I'd give him less than a 50% chance. To delay the 2008 election successfully, he would need a strong military backing. Based on the fact that top-level generals have been retiring due to the handling of Iraq, I don't think he and Rummy have the respect they keep saying they have in the Pentagon.

If he were to try, it'd be an interesting show. Congress would be up in arms, on both side of the partisan fence. Revolution is a mild term, but imagine how nice it would be if such an event was the catalyst for sweeping government reform. We can always dream I guess.

The beginning of your comment is more likely. Bush knows he's a lame duck, so he'll fritter away his final months in the frat-boy nonchalance we've grown accustomed to seeing. And history will look back on him as the asshat he has been.

I think that it shows the Puritanical nature of your politics these days;. Recently a columnist (can't remember who) was talking about how the difference between Canada and the US is just that. It comes down to how the US perceives sex has being a harmful thing. The sense when Jacksons boob hit the world, we were saying up here, what is the big deal ? Yet all these massive fines were being passed onto people. What happens when someone suggests that we go and 'eliminate' the president of Venezuela? Nothing. We gasp that this guy (name is escaping me), could say this. But nothing happens.

When one of our more interesting, and influential leaders , Trudeau passed away, his wife and his Girlfriend were there. Not to mention the kids from both mothers. We knew that he messed around, but he got the job done. Bush isn't getting the job done. Kinda sad what this crazy loon haws done to the rest of the world, and that there is no way to deal with this. I think once you guys go through your midterms this fall, (depending on the Diebold situation), you might be in a decent position to do the impeachment thing.

Clinton was impeached because a powerful clique within the Washington beltway thought that he just had to be culpable for something illegal, somewhere along the line. After spending a couple of years and more than $50 million on an incredible investigation, the Monica Lewinski episode was all they could come up with.

Lying about the blow job wasn't the cause of Clinton's impeachment. It was simply the only excuse for impeachment that the Lord High Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr could find.

Yes, but it's not likely to ever happen... Nixon would have been an obvious target for indictment after he resigned, but the following president gave him a pardon for all crimes that may have been committed during his presidency. That action is likely to be pointed to as a precedent, though in the case of Nixon the following president (Ford) was both unelected and of the same party. The game could change if a vindictive Democrat becomes the next president. I doubt that would be the case, though, as any Democrat who assumes the office would presumably want to push their own agenda and not get muddled down in such a big and ultimately pointless fight.

The Democrats have a history of silencing voices within the party who have the nerve to push for real change or accountability. The party would never allow their presidential nomination to go to anyone who was pushing for an indictment of Bush or his cronies. Radical or even strongly progressive voices within the party are either ignored completely (see Dennis Kucinich), or they seem to end up in mysterious plane crashes like Paul Wellstone.

The Dems and Reps are BOTH beholden to corporate interests and Wall St. bankers. Choosing which of the 2 major parties to vote for is simply choosing WHICH set of corporate swine you want pulling the strings in DC.

Are the Americans seriously going to elect another republican president after 8 years of what bush has given them. I guess in this case its a good thing they can only be elected twice, since I never thought they'd elect him the second time. Even with an "approval rating" of 30%, it wouldn't surprise me if he got elected again (if he could run). In canada we switched sides because of a little payoff to friends of the liberals, nothing even close to as bad as denying our constitutional rights to privacy.

I would agree that using this power to track terrorists is something that might have a need to be done, but, my problem is that the yahoo's in power are not that honorable and use the "great latitude" to listen in on non-terror related conversations which might be illegal in nature but were obtained illeagally. Then this information is probably used to get legitimate warrants because all of a sudden some "anonymous person" called in something. If I trusted the powers in charge I would have no problem with

Constitutionally, only congress can declare war. Congress has not declared war.
I agree, if we -constitutionally- declare war, then the president has exceptional powers to prosecute that war.

That's an archaic analysis - no one actually bothers to declare war anymore. We haven't had a declared war in 60 years, yet we've participated in a number of activities that an observer would probably describe as wars. Congress passed multiple bills to finance the war, and also passed bills giving the president the

I understand your point, but dont' agree. Congress did not abdicate responisbility. Congress authorized Military action which is war by another name. Everything else was political expediency.

Wars cannot be run effectively by committee or consensus. Wars end when when somebody is defeated. The framers of the U.S constitution were very wise in giving these powers to the Executive (President). As Commander and Chief prosecuting a war, they are total and absolute. And yes, it is totalatarian -- but only during a time of war. And we are at war.

Read history. You'll be shocked, totaly totaly shocked at what Presidents have done during war. This is chump change compared to things President Lincoln did. Or like what a past president said when the Supreme court differed from his opinion during a war.... "The Supreme court has made it's decision -- lets see them uphold it".

And there is the rub. If you declare war, you can declare an end to the state of war. If you don't declare war, you run on "political expediency", and effectively you have a state of "war" without end.

I argue that Congress -did- abdicate their responsibility. It is not just their privelege to declare war, it is their responsibility to recognize the necessity and play their part. Then, yes, they get out of the way and let the CiC run the actual war.

By abdicating their responsibility to declare war, they have set us up for a constitutional crisis.

War declarations are not a prosaic artifact of the Constitution, they are a serious responsibility to be used as necessary.

I refer you to JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORISTS

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements

Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Perhaps this is an exerpt from a longer bill wherein the Congress declares war? Granting the president war powers != declaring war, although the outcome is largely the same. Nonetheless, the person you're arguing against is correct. This is not a declaration of war. That involves 1.) declaring war, and 2.) declaring who we're at war with.

Bonus question! This authorizes force against those responsible for attacks on the United States. Please explain how this bill justifies a multi-year occupation of Iraq?

The Supreme Court (bless them!) ruled that the President only has "extraordinary wartime powers" as a temporary expedient to quickly do things that would take Congress too much time.

I'm not sure I've heard that, though I have heard that such "extraordinary powers" most certainly do not extend to denying constitutional rights, no matter what Hollywood may tell us.

For example, I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court later determined that Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus was, in fact, unconstitutional. Also, the Supreme Court determined that the suspension in 1942 of civillian rule in favor of military courts in Hawaii was also unconstitutional (and this was a territory, not yet a state, that had just been attacked by a foreign power's military, and even under those incredibly exceptional circumstances the constitution wasn't permitted to be suspended).

Here are some remarks by the former Chief Justice in 2000 [supremecourtus.gov], and again in 2002 [supremecourtus.gov], that address the question of civilian versus military judical authority in wartime.

Can anyone provide clear case evidence of the court determining that the President *can* suspend certain civil rights or federal laws in wartime? So far as I've ever been able to ascertain, every single time a President has gone "too far" with the wartime powers argument, he's been rebuffed years later by the Supreme Court, which tells me, at least, that any argument that a president has special lattitude in wartime is a crock, at least from a legal perspective. From a practical perspective, though, since it's always taken the Court years to get around to it, it's certainly been proven true. (though if the Court can decide a presidential election question in a matter of days, you'd think they could handle these other serious issues more quickly, too...)

That's kind of the point, isn't it? We can't find out because investigators can't be cleared.

And if somebody Authorizes it, is it still illegal?

Maybe. It depends on the activity. The President is not above the law.

If Foreign terrorists are calling you here in the U.S, I want to know why and I don't give a hoot what you claim is legal or illegal.

If my government is spying on me, I want to know why and I don't give a hoot what you claim is illegal or legal.

Now that we've gotten our wish lists out of the way, let's focus on reality. This country has elected and appointed officials and laws that govern them all. Just because the President says it's legal doesn't make it so.

If the U.S is at war, I give the Commander and Chief great latitude

That's a big if. Congress hasn't declared war, and only Congress is empowered to do so. (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8) The "War on Terror", as with the "War on Drugs", is a slogan, not a declared state of war. Commander-In-Chief he may be, but the President does not have the Constitutional authority to declare war in this country.

Your blind faith in the government is your right, and don't let me stop you from having it. I don't have that same faith. I believe that a government with nothing to hide does not deny security clearances to ITS OWN AGENTS. (Remember, DOJ is Executive branch.) I believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and power that goes unchecked and unquestioned is absolute. I believe that the administration has been doing things in my name (as a citizen) that I don't approve of, and the legislature and courts are complicit.

Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong about all my suspicions regarding the President and his staff.

Problem is, I can't know, because the President has blocked investigators from finding out.

Of course, he is going to block it. Funny thing is, this investigation had no teeth to start off with. It basically said that we are going to do everything in our power to check every little corner if you will allow it.

It already IS a Christian-run state, by the simple fact that Christians are the overwhelming majority in the US. What I think you mean to imply is that he would like the Christian ideals further forced upon all in the US, even non-Christians. For instance, he would like to ban stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage because they conflict with his notion of Christian values.

God is not malleable, the bible is not malleable, Christ's teachings are not malleable, they are there to read and to live by.

First of all, God may not be malleable, but your idea of him definitely is. Secondly, the bible is man-made (anyone having studied its history is forced to conclude this), so a valid opinion is that it is not the whole and accurate word of God, but rather a human perversion of God's message. There are many conflicting documents of christ's teachings, and once you start doubting the bible's accuracy and completeness, it's only a small step to doubting what was and wasn't a part of christ's teachings.

So, yeah, depending on where your beliefs lie, you can be a christian (someone who beliefs that christ was the son of God and sent to save us) and have completely different beliefs than what current bible canon dictates they should be.

To be very clear, "he would like the Christian ideals further forced upon all in the US, even non-Christians" for the simple reason that each of these issues has been carefully selected to act as a wedge issue, dividing the population into polarised for-and-against camps that are incapable of compromise, because such a divided country is unable to get enough unity to act on the real issues.

It's quite remarkable how so many issues trumpted by the administration actually have nothing to do with Christian beliefs at all. Immigrant rights, for instance. It's a classic case of a situation that can be tolerated without too much discussion, but by forcing the discussion on the nation, the administration splits the American people into, what was it, FOUR? camps of opinion.

The US is not a Christian-run state. It is not a theocracy but a kleptocracy. It is a state run by gangsters. They are well-dressed, well-educated, well-connected, modern, slick, and very powerful gangsters, but they are gangsters nonetheless, and they use the instruments of the state for personal and collective profit just like any tin-pot dictator.

Congress will never impeach Bush because Congress was corrupted and castrated a long time ago. Gerrymandering has turned Congress into a cartel of power that removes competition and the need to deliver value to the citizen.

If it is a Christian-run state, then how is it that the state acts in the most un-Christian of ways?

Most aspects of the way American society and economics work should be abhorrant to Christians. It is "survival of the fittest" and believing in a lie that anyone can make it to the top (in order to placate those at the bottom).

The Constitution was originally structured with the Senate being elected by the state legislators, not the people. Why? To provide some smaller group able to check the "tyranny of the majority", where a majority of people take actions which are morally unsupportable or otherwise wrong.If we wanted the majority to rule unchecked, for that matter, why bother with the electoral college? Why, for that matter, bother with Congress at all -- or the bill of rights? One could simply implement a direct democracy whe

I would bet that 60 years ago, a majority of Americans would have been against interracial marriage. Does that mean that the government in power should have pushed for an amendment banning it? (Maybe they did, I honestly don't know.) Of course today that would be an absurd proposition to most people, hopefully because they would see that it's discrimination and infringes on people's liberty. I wonder if our society will ever feel that way about gay marriage...

There's a difference between following the minority and protecting the minoritiy's rights.

"Yeah. You know that whole Watergate hotel thing you guys are investigating? I'm going to have to ask you to stop. New policy, you know. You got that memo, right? Great. So if you could just not look into that, that'd be great." - Nixon

The Fourth Amendment. Currently, under the rule of King George, law enforcement can invade your home at will and without a warrant.

Do you think being on an international call during a time of war should somehow be protected from surveillance?

We're not a war. Congress has not declared a war on any person or nation.

I'm tempted to ask, "What are you saying on your calls anyway?" but that will set the slashbots off.

What I say on my calls are none of yours and the governments business. Especially if I make those calls in the privacy of my own house. Making such calls on a cell phone in public is another matter since everyone around you can hear your yammering.

Doesn't anyone work on corporate email systems?

That is a private entity who owns the equipment and the communication pathways. That is completely different than having a publicly financed telecommunication system where everyone and their grandmother are communicating.

First of all, that headline... While it may be technically true, it's misleading. Then the write-up that convicts the entire program even before an investigation (which is apparently now stalled) has been started by calling it "illegal actions". That might be putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

Let's try re-writing the headline and summary:

Senator Kerry Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe
By failing to win the presidency, Senator Kerry has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place.

There you go - this entire thing is really Kerry's doing. And though misleading, it's technically correct.

Then the write-up that convicts the entire program
even before an investigation (which is apparently now
stalled) has been started by calling it "illegal actions"

The program does indeed break the law. Only two
points remain in-the-air - Who authorized it, and will
Congress make similar future programs legal.

But breaking the law breaks the law - If you get convicted
of "murder"ing your (literally) braindead spouse the day
before congress passes an exception for assisted suicide,
you still go to prison for murder.

Bush (or someone VERY high up, which the proposed
investigation would determine) broke the law (again).
I want to see Bush or Cheney do the perp walk. So
do the majority of Americans at this point - It
might have taken most of the sheep six years to catch
on, but they've finally noticed that every time the
wolf appears, some of them vanish.

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that... (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party...

So, "United States Person" means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.. an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power.

President George Walker Bush: "What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate."

The only way it becomes legal is if you accept the ridiculous legal arguments made by the administration, or if the program only ever covered tourists and illegal aliens. Although school/work visas are not explicitly mentioned, they would almost always be covered by the association and corporation clauses of the United States Person definition.

I was searching for a suitable dubya quote to make a witty reply - in particular I was searching for a quote containing a reference to both the words "freedom" and "truth". Imaginge my surprise to find most pages of dubya quotes I found, such as this one [quotationspage.com], contain numerous references to "freedom" but few or in this case no references to "truth". Not one. Does this tell us something about the man?

Then too he has an odd definition of freedom. He seems to think freedom and democracy are exactly the same thing.

Don't get me wrong... Democracy and voting play substantial roles in assuring freedom. But they're not the only things.

Take for example the cohabitation law struck down in North Carolina recently. A democraticly elected majority said: an unrelated man and woman can't live with each other under the same roof unless they get married. Its fornication and society won't stand for it.

That's not freedom. Freedom says you can run your personal life pretty much any way you want to and its nobody else's business.

Oh, come on now... it's not that bad. The private lawsuits are progressing through the courts, where the same cry of "national security" was not given credence. All that happened here is that the president told another part of the executive branch to back off. If he told a congressional investigator to back off, or ignored an order from the judicial branch... well, then the days would be much, much darker. While I don't necessarily agree with what Bush is trying to do, I at least take some comfort in the fa

You have two and a half years to go only if Bush allows elections to take place normally. Looking into my crystal ball I forsee a terrible threat to the USA from, um... evildoers... who seek to um... destroy the American way of life. Elections might have to wait a little bit -- you know, just until the emergency passes.

National security must be protected at all costs now that WWIII [guardian.co.uk] has kicked off and apparently everybody except the US leadership and those with real WMD are the enemy.
Christ on a stick how much more hysterical bullshit, civilian deaths and money grubbing do we have to put up with from these maniacs.

... into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place.

Ahem, sorry to get "technical", but the actions haven't been proven to be illegal yet. They are "allegedly" illegal, since no one has been convicted of a crime (if that will ever happen).

But this is typical spin... the fact is that part of the power of the President, of all Presidents, is to decide on the classification of information within the executive branch of government. When something is classified as "top secret", it requires the President to say, "hey this can now be released to the public" before it is legal to actually do so. This is why we've been having these leak probes (although they haven't gone anywhere). It's called access control... it's there for a reason... and it's not to hinder an investigative probe into misconduct, but to prevent the hindering of investigations into terrorist activities.

If any entity can declare itself immune from investigation or oversight, then they are effectively declaring themselves immune from the law. Ergo, the probability that the acts in question were "illegal" are inversely proportional to the odds that President Bush authorized them. Okay, so I'm being facetious, but the fact is that the acts can't be considered "illegal," ever if he can block investigation, and thus any chance of impeachment. I'd like to see someone, anyone, explain this in any way where it means something other than "the law doesn't apply to President Bush."

What sickens me is not so much that a politician would do this (who wouldn't want to have veto power over any investigations into their own conduct?) but that so-called "conservative" pundits will side with him. The side that ostensibly sides with limited, toothless government will enthusiastically support a President's authority to place himself beyond the reach of the law, just because that President is from their own party. It wouldn't be so grating, but I'm a conservative, one who believes in limited government, the fallibility of man, etc. I actually have the political principles that they claim to have (at least when a Democrat was in the White House) and so, in calling myself a conservative, I'm placing myself in the same wacko, Orwellian club that they've infected. But what else do I call myself, politically? I was reading James Bovard when Clinton was in office. I was concerned about runaway government. I was frightened by Ruby Ridge and Waco. I even agreed with a few David Horowitz articles.

But at the time the Republicans were right about where I was (though I couldn't have cared less about Clinton's sex life). After 9/11, they all went effectively crazy and I was left feeling like a schmuck because I actually thought they believed in small government and freedom, as I do. I'm effectively left without a party, because the Democrats are no better. I could vote Libertarian, but I really doubt the efficacy of that. It's a bit surreal to vote, to care about politics, in a nation where no one really cares about freedom. There is no political principle at work in either main party, and there isn't really a fiscally conservative/Amnesty International/ACLU/Torturewatch/anti-death-penalty etc party for me to vote for even as a weak compromise. There is just nothing. No, I don't believe it's a conspiracy. I'm just part of a ridiculously small minority of people who are abhorred by what's going on, and would be regardless of what party was running the show this week.

I'm beginning to understand how the abolitionists felt at the very beginning, when they were the only ones saying "slavery is wrong." When I tell people "torture is wrong," and I have to argue the point, that leaves a very surreal, bizarre, and uneasy feeling in the back of my mind for the rest of the day. No one cares. I don't really see any way we can prevent a headlong slide into totalitarianism. If Bush outright suspended the next election, I'm convinced that at least 40% of Americans would support him. His base, the evangelicals (especially the Christian Reconstructionists) would definitely support him, because that's what they're after anyway. But I just don't think Americans at large think or care about any of this. It's not a very encouraging outlook to have on things.

Interesting example-- I agree with this woman regarding pro-life as the trump card!

I guess that's it in the nutshell - 1 issue 1 vote - the problem is that life and politics arn't about 1 issue. They are about everything.
" a choice between multiple candidates that thought killing children was wrong and that it should be stopped." I believe you ment to quote "unborn" in there, since children are dieing in Afganistan and Iraq at a high rate under current policies. "But that's different" you say, not really. Dead is dead, and neither has a voice in the matter.
Or let's look at it differently:
Your support of Bush solely on the Pro-Life issue results in:

Limiting financial assistance for pre-natal care if the organization mentions the option of abortion.

A stay the course policy in Iraq & Afganistan - resulting in continued military & civilian deaths in both - as well as a continued/accelerated propogation of terrorism supporters.

Massive overspending for projects of dubious bennifit - DHS control of airport security comes to mind - From a travel magazine [travelandleisure.com] at least it doesn't appear to have a direct bias - Wired [wired.com] tends to be more liberal but check the GAO & DHS papers refered to by PDF links in the 5th paragraph. Which results in not only a huge deficit, but further reduced spending for education, local services (Police, fire, ambulance), and housing.

So while you got a vote or 2 twords a pro-life campaign, you also got a pile of restrictions that dumped more crap onto those least able to cope with it - those children you are thinking so much of.
I am certainly not saying that the Pro-choice/Right-to-Life issue should not be an issue, but to make it the only one you decide your vote on, completely ignores the fact that it's not the only issue out there. That kind of blindness is what has gotten us here, and makes it impossible to stear the government on the centrist course it needs to serve the needs of all of the people.

It's funny how Bush loves to pontificate about the spreading of 'Freedom' and 'Democracy' around the world, yet he is so good at suppressing it at home.
Apparently, he can do whatever he wants and not even the US Justice Department can overrule him.
Now I have to ask, do we really live in a 'Democracy?'

I'm a pretty strong social and fiscal conservative. As you may guess, this also means I believe in the rule of law.

It's painful to consider, but I'm actually considering voting Democrat in the upcoming elections to help put the Democrats in the majority of at least one, but ideally two, houses of Congress. I don't want to enable them to pursue liberal agendas, but maybe at least they'll have the balls to keep the President under the rule of law via impeachment. Apparently the Republican Congress/Senate that I voted for last time is unwilling to perform their duties in this area. I'm going to want to take a shower after I leave the voting booths this time.:/

1) Voting for a btter government should never make one feel dirty.2) voting blindly for a party is bad.3) Being able to relize that your party is doing bad things and voting against them is good.4) Democrates aren't as liberal any more.5) The republicans aren't republicans, there fanatics who care about religeon and making everyone adhere to there belief.

I do not vote for any one party just to be voting for that party. I say these things because bad things are happening in are government and we need more people like you who can think for themselves.

I saw a bumper sticker with a Picture of Geaorge Bush, and it said 'Enough is Enough'Enough is enough, indeed.

The best vote that you can make when you don't care for either the Democrat or Republican candidate is to vote in a way that will cause the government to become divided. In other words, you want to try to elect people in a way that the different branches of government are controlled by different parties. That way the checks and balances will keep the government from doing too much damage, as it keeps the branches fighting eachother as opposed to fighting its citizens. Right now the Republicans control the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. The Supreme Court is still roughly 50/50 Rep/Dem.

Hence the best option in this upcoming election, if you don't care for either party, is to give the Democrats a very small majority of the House and Senate. That way the executive branch would be 100% Republican, the legislative branch would be %40 Republican, and the Supreme Court would be 50% Republican. While voting this way is not ideal, it is better than not voting at all. Furthermore, our country was founded on the idea of a government consisting of checks and balances. If you believe in that ideal, then VOTE FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES!

In 2008, if you still don't like what is going on, then continue to vote in a way that keeps control of the government split between parties.

If Al Capone would have had enough pull at the IRS, I suppose he could have simply cancelled his audit.

Not much different with Bush is it really? He's doing illegal things, and our screwed up executive system allows him to simply cancel any investigations into his behavior. I don't like to say people are guilty by denying their guilt as that is a very slippery slope, but in this case he is VERY actively blocking investigations into his actions, justifying it with laughable invokations of "national security", and that raises one giant red flag that we need someone he cannot override (grand jury?) to haul his can into court and expose whatever it is he is hiding.

He did not do this for "reasons of national security", and the whole world knows it. He did it to keep himself IN office and OUT of jail.

As long as he's there he can play, but that only lasts a little longer. I will find great entertainment seeing him locked up in a few years.

It would be intersting to see them impeach him, but he's doing a good job of stalling for time so far so I don't know if that'll actually happen or not. There is certainly pleanty of talk about it tho.

I guess most of you guys have heard of the Swift scandal as well. Well, for all those of you who think europeans are anti-american: imagine being an european minister or head of state. You want to fight terrorism as much as the next guy, and the biggest player in this game is the white house. But if are pro-Bush, you are allying with a government which does not respect its own constitution, never mind yours. Instead of asking Interpol or an institution under democratic supervision to monitor suspect international financial traffic, just send a CC of every single Swift transaction to the NSA. Is Boeing getting updates on Airbus transactions before Airbus gets them themselves? Hopefully not. But even if GWB doesn't allow it, Boeing is cooperating with 3 letter agencies on a daily basis, and what is a little memory stick among friends? Especially if there is no outside control on the use and spread of data? So the European voter brands the politician a gullible idiot at best, disrespectful of human rights at worst. And the Bush administration keeps on painting itself in a corner...

Something that's been bothering me for the last few years about the cry from the administration for utmost secrecy in its actions is the way they never get around to saying exactly whom they're trying to hide information from. When all is said and done, is there any reason to believe that al Qaeda has intelligence gathering capabilities beyond watching satellite television?

We've had secret court cases before, we've had secret sessions of Congress, we have a whole series of safeguards that were apparently deemed necessary and proper when our foe was something as formidable as the KGB, why are we to believe that a non-state has the resources to do better? It would seem all that is needed to maintain secrecy from al Qaeda is to keep the information from being stored on USB drives in Baghdad. Does the administration really believe there are al Qaeda spies that highly placed in the United States government?

Lot of comments going around about impeachment and possibly having the other retake congress in the midterms. Unfortunately nothing will change for a number of reasons:1) Bush doesn't care he is the decider.2) Congress will not act because they are his rubber stamp.3) The voters can't do anything since redistricting has given the Republican congress a comfortable majority in the house.4) The courts, now packed with right wing activist judges (esp. the supremes), will do nothing to restore democracy.5) The constant state of war can be used to manipulate information and therefore the public.6) The Senate is not subject to redistricting and could be taken back but that would take 6 years. Also the Senate cannot begin impeachment, only the House can.

The only it is going to change is if the Dems take over more state legislatures, redistrict, then retake the House. This will be difficult due to pork barrel politics (by voting in a Rep. a district will get more money) and campaign contributions. And if the Reps. get into trouble again, they just trot out the terrorists and homos again.

Get used to it. It will probably be 'One Nation, One Party, One Deceider' type rule for the next 20 years.

It seems you've already started to vote away your freedoms. If the rest of your country is going to take this lying down, maybe it's time for the rest of you to start taking up the arms that you've so rigoursly been defending the right to own (regardless of the cost in your society) to start taking control of your country back from the religious oligarchy that is currently in charge.

You dragged one President through the mud because he cheated on his wife. Now you've got another one breaking your laws and turning your country into the sort of place that people fifty years ago used to write books about to prove points totalitarianism.

Instead of posting about it on Slashdot, maybe the time has come to start educating your less savvy friends and family that maybe they should stop watching Fox and start engaging their brains to figure out what is best for their country, their family and their friends.

Until you figure out a better way to spend untold billions of dollars and priceless amounts of human life, we, the undersigned, consider ourselves at great personal risk of your policies, attitudes, and actions.

Signed sincerely,

The Rest of the World. (Please consult an atlas for our exact location relative to the United States.)

PS, if you could take money out of politics, you might find - as a completely surprising corollary - you make your country a better place for your citizens.

And with it the separation of the powers of legislative, executive, judiciary functions. Americans should say "thanks for the good times, farewell". With a bit of goodwill, you will still see these things in history books for a few years.

While I would agree that this administration seems bent on creating an all-powerful executive branch and removing the independent judiciary, that really isn't what is going on in this case.

The OPR is part of the DOJ. The DOJ is a huge part of the executive branch. That's why Bush has so much power over the DOJ. The executive telling the executive what to do has nothing to do with separation of powers.

Am I the only one who finds it funny that the Department of Justice is not part of the Judiciary branch? Historically it makes sense since it is a cabinet department of the executive. But considering it is often responsible for investigating misconduct of the legislative and executive branches, it is very odd. It sounds like the Judiciary branch needs an investigative arm.

I decided to reply to this one because I think it's important for those of us who actually care about our country and the Constitution to realize that there are a lot of people who believe the parent's logic. It's basically a "think of the children" argument balanced against a "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" mindset. It's a very, very scary argument for our country but I think a lot of Fox viewers believe this and no amount of parroting the Franklin quote or modding down anonymous postings will get them to change their mind.

So the question on the table to the people who belive in the Constitution is this: how do we convince the people who are this afraid of terrorists that a totalitarian state is not the solution to terrorism?

So the question on the table to the people who belive in the Constitution is this: how do we convince the people who are this afraid of terrorists that a totalitarian state is not the solution to terrorism?

Simple. Let America become a totalitarian state. It won't last, but it will scare enough people for the time that it does last to buy another two hundred years of freedom, after maybe a twenty year civil war.

We have failed to learn history. Now we have to take our medicine and repeat it.

That's the question we'd like answered. It appears the President used his position to order wiretaps without bothering to get judicial authorisation, which is illegal. Or, at least, was at the time. That's the point of the investigation, to learn exactly what was done, when, by whom, and for what purpose.

As a native...I am pretty sure we (the majority) didn't vote for him.Through a series of tricks and covert maneuvers this administration effectively stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections. (see Robert Kennedy Jr's article in Rolling Stone).Now, since these same people now control all 3 branches of our government there isn't much we CAN do, short of rebellion.I believe we (again, the majority) are angry at what is being done, but the only tool available to change the situation is in the hands of those in cha

Ah, yes. Robert Kennedy, Jr., the very picture of impartiality and fairness in a feud between Democrats and Republicans. Why, I can't think of any reason that he'd want to sway the debate in favor of one party!

The program only applies to communications where one party is located outside of the
United States.

That's the whole damn controversy, here-- domestic surveillance without FISA warrants. Nobody except wingnut wackjobs are arguing that this has not occurred. The administration itself has taken the tack of inventing fatuous legal "justifications" involving the AUMF (which anyone with half a brain can see were conclusively kicked to the curb by the Supreme Court in Hamdan).

Furthermore, by all accounts this surveillance is performed by 'tapping' everything in sight and sorting it out later, so it's even worse than the DOJ admits it is.

If you don't understand what's going on, maybe you should refrain from assuming a position.